The Push for a Uniform Day of Rest: Saving America or Sacrificing Liberty?

The Heritage Foundation on January 8, 2026, recently published a policy document titled “Saving America by Saving the Family: A Foundation for the Next 250 Years,” which is a renewed effort to elevate Sunday as a civilly protected day of rest. Described as a solution to family breakdown and moral decline, the document argues that restoring social stability requires the reestablishment of shared rhythms of rest—implicitly centered on Sunday. Though presented in the language of compassion, wellness, and societal healing, the proposal ultimately advances restrictions on commerce and public activity on Sundays, placing religiously rooted practices within the sphere of public policy.

Basically, The Heritage Foundation believes that “saving America” requires the reintroduction of Sunday observance into public policy backed by civil authority, raising serious concerns about religious liberty and the separation of church and state. The Heritage Foundation’s views on Sunday can no longer be ignored or dismissed as abstract theory, as the current administration has explicitly embraced its blueprint as a framework for governance.

The close tie between The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 and Donald Trump’s administration is clearly understood by the fact that many of the people who helped write the Project 2025 policy blueprint are now serving in his government. In other words, The Heritage Foundation has emerged as a central influence shaping President Donald Trump’s policy direction.

On pages 38 and 39 of the newly released document, “Saving America by Saving the Family: A Foundation for the Next 250 Years,” the following appears under the section titled “Support for a Uniform Day of Rest”:

• “Support for a Uniform Day of Rest—As zoning laws allow a community to determine where one can operate certain businesses, “blue laws” reflect the local judgments as to when one can operate certain businesses. In the case of McGowan v. Maryland (1961), the Supreme Court held by an eight-to-one vote that Sunday-closing laws that include the purpose of providing a uniform day of rest are constitutional and can accommodate the fact that the majority of people who take a day of rest for religious reasons do so on Sundays. Massachusetts, for example, requires that “every employer of labor engaged in carrying on any manufacturing, mechanical, or mercantile establishment or workshop…shall allow every person…at least twenty-four consecutive hours of rest…in every seven consecutive days.” [1]

• “A uniform day of rest that limits commercial activity can provide temporal boundaries that help communities to set aside time for religious observance, family gatherings, outdoor activities, and rest. A stable base of research shows that these practices correlate with better mental health, stronger social bonds, and more stable family structures.” [1]

• “With the advent of on-demand delivery, shopping can be shifted easily and conveniently to other days of the week. By restoring a common rhythm of rest and reflection, community rest laws could help to reverse the trend toward ‘spiritual homelessness’ and foster the social habits necessary for communities to cohere and flourish.” [1]

• “Despite today’s on-demand culture, the U.S. Postal Service does not deliver regular mail on Sundays, most organized youth sports avoid Sunday competitions, and most banks are closed on Sundays. The ever-popular Chick-Fil-A chain closes its restaurants on Sundays for the benefit of its workers and their families. Where new, planned communities or transitioning communities form, they should consider adding rest days as part of their master plans for balanced and thriving community life.” [1]

The Heritage Foundation cites McGowan v. Maryland (1961) as their justification to rehabilitate and revive Sunday laws in America. This U.S. Supreme Court decision, which has remained largely dormant for decades, upheld Sunday laws on the grounds that they were deemed to serve a secular purpose—providing a common day of rest for workers—rather than enforcing a religious mandate. In other words, The Heritage Foundation argues that the ruling establishes a valid constitutional precedent for reactivating Sunday closing measures. On this basis, the Kevin Roberts’ think tank and foundation encourages local governments and planners to incorporate mandated rest days into broader “master plans” aimed at restoring balance between work and family life.

Here is the problem: the U.S. Supreme Court doesn’t always get things right—and it has been wrong before on issues of basic freedom, including Sunday laws. The Court gravely erred when it abandoned basic constitutional principles during the Jim Crow era, upholding racial segregation and state-sponsored discrimination in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896). Rather than defending God-given human dignity and equal protection under the law, the Court bowed to prejudice and hate, demonstrating that what is declared legal by the state is not always morally right.

The same pattern was repeated in 1961, when the Court upheld Sunday closing laws (McGowan v. Maryland). Although these laws clearly involved a religious observance, the Court mischaracterized them as “secular” labor regulations. In doing so, it legitimized the state’s power to regulate God’s sacred time, once again abandoning the minority—Seventh-day Adventists and Jews—and caving to the majority and its tradition, Sunday sacredness, a blatant violation of religious liberty.

Then came Roe v. Wade (1973), when the Supreme Court of the United States again overstepped its constitutional role by declaring a right that had never previously existed in American law. The decision opened the door to abortion on demand and even partial-birth abortion—practices that permit abortion for any reason, or no stated reason at all. These are not medical procedures or necessities but legal constructs presented as rights, despite having no foundation in either Scripture or the text and original intent of the U.S. Constitution.

In each case—Jim Crow laws, Sunday laws, and abortion—the Court failed because it abandoned constitutional restraint, upheld human reasoning, and interpreted rights according to the popular sentiments of the time rather than enduring constitutional principles. History shows that when courts get such issues wrong, they do not safeguard liberty; instead, they lay the groundwork for abuse and discrimination.

It is time for McGowan v. Maryland (1961) to be overturned, as it was wrongly decided when the Court upheld Sunday closing laws by rebranding a distinctly religious observance as a secular institution. Today, The Heritage Foundation is seeking to revive these same Sunday laws—measures that clearly and unequivocally arose from apostate religious worship—by resurrecting the argument that so-called blue laws are merely neutral labor regulations. This reasoning allows the state to regulate sacred time while denying that it is doing so and also destroys the First Amendment’s protection by permitting the government to enforce the religious traditions of the majority under the pretext of saving society, families, mental health, and overall well-being.

If this policy proposal by The Heritage Foundation—calling for Sunday to be established as a uniform national day of rest—begins to take hold in American public life, then the United States will truly be speaking “as a dragon” while still claiming to be lamb-like. When Sunday observance is promoted as a civic duty and social necessity, it represents the elevation of Catholic doctrine as a remedy for national renewal and moral restoration. From a prophetic perspective, this development is precisely the type of deception we were warned would take place during the final crisis, as religious apostasy and papal decrees are promoted under the banner of unity, healing, and national salvation.

“And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb.” Revelation 14:9-10.

Sources

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/documents/e647459c-259a-4fea-bc1b-5cb0dfe196b2.pdf